Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Reviews

We are deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux as our primary Linux OS, and we are using Ansible for some automation initiatives. Our use cases are around centralization.

We have a supported product. We are at the beginning of building a relationship with Red Hat similar to the one we have with Microsoft, Cisco, and others. It is to standardize the quality, supported version, and company. I am leading this project, and I believe Red Hat is the one.

We have built a hybrid environment. Most of it is on-prem, but we also have Azure, so we have both cloud and on-prem environments. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is helpful for patch and vulnerability management. There have been a lot of security initiatives around Windows and tightening it up, but our Linux environment was not standardized. Red Hat Enterprise Linux standardizes it. With the combination of Insights, it aligns with Windows and other security initiatives.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not yet enabled us to centralize development. It is too early for that. I am not very familiar with OpenShift, but with OpenShift, Kubernetes containers, and some of those capabilities, DevOps will become more integrated with Red Hat and its products in the future.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux’s built-in security features seem very good when it comes to risk reduction, business continuity, and maintaining compliance. One thing that helps is the catalog of preexisting playbooks provided by Red Hat around security. It helps you ramp up on security. It aligns it with what an IT person on the Windows side already knows to look for, such as firewalls, setting up permissions, etc. They have playbooks for Active Directory integration, security initiatives, and limiting the firewall. Building out some of the playbooks that Red Hat has in those areas was helpful in getting a good security posture for those systems.

Ansible is going to make the portability of applications and containers happen for us. The OS is important, but our ability to use Ansible and deploy via a cloud or automate via a cloud or on-prem would accomplish that.

Red Hat Insights is valuable. There is patch and vulnerability management. It is similar to what you would see with SCCM. I have a single pane of glass interface. I can approve the patches and vulnerabilities, and hopefully, between Satellite and Ansible, we can automate that process.

I am looking for training. I am a Windows guy who accidentally became a Linux guy. You volunteer a few times, and you are the guy. Right now, I am looking for training and ramping up to be able to support their products, so professional services are key. There are things like Lightspeed with IBM Watson. I do not know YAML very well, so it is going to be integral for me to create playbooks at the very beginning and be able to use the AI tools. If I say, "How do I open a port on this Cisco router?", the AI tools are going to give me the YAML code. In spite of not being a Linux guy or a great coder, I can use those tools to ramp up very quickly. Making Lightspeed a part of Red Hat deployment initiatives tremendously helps with customers' success. It gives them that extra tool. Right now, it is being sold separately as a subscription. If they could integrate that capability, people would not have to go use ChatGPT and other tools. They could use that as a part of it. It would just align things with Red Hat, so one area they can improve on is the approach to customer success for new deployments.

Red Hat Insights are instrumental in identifying vulnerabilities. I am still learning, but my understanding is that it is not directly connected to your environment to deploy a patch or vulnerability fix. It is going to give a YAML playbook to do that. It does not actually execute it. On the Windows side, I have an approval process on the server where I can say, "Deploy this patch." I thought of Insights along the same lines where I can just approve things, and then based on some backend configuration, it will implement them using Ansible, Satellite, and on-premises Ansible. It seems disconnected right now. It might not be, but to me, there seems to be a gap there. I love Insights, and I want to fully automate that approval process. This could be a point for improvement if it does not already do that.

Another area of improvement is Red Hat expressing a return on investment better. I do not know if they have determined a lot of that. I have always assumed that I could go with an open-source OS in a less expensive manner than Windows or something else. My impression is that there would be less cost, but I do not know that for certain. Red Hat building out some of that ROI on different products would be beneficial to their sales effort.

We are a brand new customer.

It is more stable than the wild west environment that I have been in. There is standardization. It is stable by standardizing.

So far, its scalability has been good. Once I get a good image built, I will get some workflows built into Ansible. I will have that process all the way down to the help desk. We will be entering variables and kicking out systems all day.

We have been using it minimally. We have about 15% Linux environment with lots of flavors. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is what we are centralizing on from now on, so we are going to do a conversion of all those. We have a new standard going forward. We have about 15% Linux systems, which would amount to about 150 systems throughout North America. It is a small footprint.

I have not had to call them much, so I do not have a good handle on support from Red Hat. Everybody gets at least a C or a five, but I am optimistic. It is going to be good. I would give them at least a seven out of ten.

Prior to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it was CentOS and others. CentOS was free. It was whatever was available or the developers or applications guys were familiar with.

We switched to Red Hat Enterprise Linux for centralization, to be supported, and for patching and vulnerabilities.

Most of the things that I am deploying or replacing are on-prem and on Azure cloud. It is 50/50.

The deployment was very easy. They have a great and user-friendly installation process with 9.x and above. However, just being new to it and having a security hat on, I still struggle with what should and should not be installed on the base image. It is a learning curve for me, but using the interface has been great. I was able to join Active Directory and all those things.

CDW is handling our professional services and our training, which is a separate purchase. Its initial rollout is with CDW.

We have not yet seen an ROI.

It is expensive. Everything is. I was happy to get a three-year Red Hat Enterprise Linux contract for our initial rollout. 

It is less expensive than other solutions. It is a growing company.

It is called Microsoft ARC. It now facilitates patches for Linux, but it did not include certain things. For me, there was much more benefit outside of just patching by going with Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ansible.

I am not yet certain about Red Hat Insights' vulnerability alerts and targeted guidance. We are at the beginning. We are just adding systems. I have not set those alerts up if they exist. I assume there are some. I am also going to evaluate how accurate the vulnerability and patching information is because we have other security products that are looking at the same things on the Windows side, and they have already identified many of the vulnerabilities. As a new customer, I want to make sure that if our other system says something is a vulnerability, Red Hat Insights also says that it is a vulnerability. I want to feel confident in the vulnerabilities that I am getting from Red Hat Insights. I want to make sure that other products are also scanning for the same thing. I suspect it is.

To a colleague who is looking at open-source, cloud-based operating systems for Linux instead of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I would recommend going for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I cannot think of another OS that can match this.

I will start off with an optimistic ten, and I will rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.

I use the product for the integration capabilities it provides between my company's servers and the servers from other companies since we operate in the banking sector. I use Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for clusters or load balancing. The tool provides an open-source platform to use any program. Many programs can be installed over Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

I have seen that the upgrade from RHEL 7 to RHEL 8 can be a bit problematic since I have seen some issues during the upgrade of libraries, along with some conflicts with the other libraries in the tool. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in the product. Presently, I am not trying to upgrade from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for two years.

It is a stable solution.

I have only used a little bit of technical support. I can say that over the span of years that I have used the tool, I have used the support offered by the product only twice. I don't have much experience when it comes to the support team. The support team did not help me solve my issues, and I had to search for a resolution by myself to solve my problems. People from India who are a part of the support team don't seem to have much experience in solving the product-related problems of the customers. I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

Neutral

My company also uses MariaDB as a database, while at times, we use databases from Oracle or PostgreSQL over RHEL.

Sometimes, I use Ubuntu for some of the end-users in my company. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is useful for servers and not for end users. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is very compatible with servers.

The upgradation and migration parts attached to the solution can be described as a very straightforward and easy process. Sometimes, I migrate from the on-premises version to the cloud, which I find to be a very easy process. The servers are up and running very well, so I have no problems with the product.

I have experience with the on-premises version of the product.

The in-house team, consisting of four people, in my company takes care of the upgrade and migration parts attached to the solution.

My company has acquired five to ten licenses from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL).

My company uses the normal security features provided by the product. Presently, I am taking some courses related to security. My company uses solutions for security purposes, like CrowdStrike Falcon Protection.

I use the documentation provided by the product. I also joined the academy operated by Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) to learn about courses related to OpenShift and virtualization. The documentation is very easy to understand, and it is also good for learning purposes.

I joined the product's academy courses when Red Hat opened a new branch in Egypt. I have got certificates for learning about OpenShift and virtualization. I am planning to learn OpenStack.

For provisioning and patching, I use Foremen, which is an open-source product implemented by Red Hat Satellite. Foremen is very good and easy to use for patching and security updates.

Leapp or Red Hat Insights are not features that are enabled by default. I don't usually use the aforementioned in the product.

I use Red Hat Store for image-building purposes. Some other programs are installed after the images get installed with the help of the product.

Speaking about whether I use the web console or Convert2RHEL, I would say that I use the terminal console provided by the product, and it is also very easy for me to use.

The product has affected my company's security and uptime since Linux offers a firewall that provides complete security, which is very good.

I hope to use the product in a hybrid environment.

I need to prepare for security standard certifications from Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) since it can help me understand the features and the security that I need to get from the product for my company, making it something very important for my organization.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a big part of my company since we use a lot of servers with its open-source services. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) serves as the base of the servers in our company.

Sometimes, I take care of the maintenance of the product, but it is not something that is required all the time. The maintenance process is pretty normal.

As a part of our company's migration or upgrade plans to stay updated, I will be upgrading from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9.

The product does what it is meant for, especially if MariaDB is installed over the tool.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux serves as the foundation for our cluster infrastructure, allowing us to deploy applications and connect servers. We further enhance operational efficiency by deploying Kubernetes on top.

We chose Red Hat Enterprise Linux for its stability and well-rounded features and its proven track record of decades of reliable operation.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features and mandatory access control help to mitigate and secure the OS from threats.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is well documented and anyone with a technical background can easily understand and use the OS.

Red Hat's image builder is helpful.

Building upon the industry's 95 percent adoption of Linux OS, our Red Hat Enterprise Linux with Kubernetes setup has helped our operations.

We have not encountered any downtime while using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us to achieve security standards certification.

The performance of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is consistent between on-premises and cloud deployments. The key difference is simply a shift from owning hardware to renting cloud space for the operating system.

Red Hat is open source, so what we get with Red Hat Enterprise Linux is valuable support that is not included in the free version.

Recently, whenever we have applied a Red Hat patch, we have encountered errors requiring additional work. Unfortunately, the release notes for these patches are not always updated accurately, creating further challenges during troubleshooting. Specifically, the notes often fail to mention dependent packages that are also updated alongside the main package.

While the OS hardening feature is helpful, it could benefit from additional automation. A one-click package for hardening all files would significantly improve efficiency compared to the current manual process, especially considering the hundreds of files we've processed over the years.

The support has room for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for eight years.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a six out of ten.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is deployed across multiple locations in our organization with 95 percent of our employees that use it.

To ensure optimal performance and security, we must prioritize installing operating system updates as they become available.

Taking the Red Hat administration course beforehand will significantly ease the user experience when using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage our database.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps reduce our risk.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to maintain compliance by making the data required easily accessible to us.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good and they provide good training.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux System Roles help manage our database.

I use the Red Hat Enterprise Linux Web Console and Command Manager. The Web Console helps monitor our database and run queries in Command Manager.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux enhances our security.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us meet security standards certification requirements, which is advantageous.

The security of the OS is the most valuable feature.

The labor required to maintain the on-premises storage systems has room for improvement.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux can benefit from more promotions and demos.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for one year.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

We run Red Hat Enterprise Linux in parallel with other OS systems. We are satisfied with how well Red Hat Enterprise Linux works with our other products.

Upgrading the versions is straightforward. All the stakeholders from the system side, database side, and consultants are involved in the updates. 

The cost of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is reasonable. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten.

We have ten people that are using the solution in our organization.

One of the valuable features is that it's convenient. 

The rest of its features are really nice.

Red Hat enables us to achieve security standards certification. We have been certified for the PPI certification last year. 

Red Hat has been good when it comes to building with confidence and ensuring availability across our infrastructure. We are really confident about the security process.

It is implemented across multiple physical and virtual infrastructures. We have applied it on most production servers. They are integrated quite well. 

We use the Red Hat system roles feature. We have been using this for automation purposes and to find some tests. 

The response could be better for urgent issues. If there's an issue with live services, they need to be faster. 

It would be nice to have antivirus services.

There should be more upgrades to the security features. 

I've used the solution for a long time. My organization has used it for more than three years. 

The stability is good. I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

The scalability is decent. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. Different teams and departments, including application and development teams. 

We do not have plans to increase usage in the future.

I'm very happy with the technical support.

Positive

We have got some other open systems like CentOS. We just have most of our production services to ReadyX from CentOS and Oracle. Red Hat is more secure. The support is very nice as well.

I joined the organization after deployment and wasn't involved in the implementation. 

I'm not sure if the solution requires any maintenance. 

I'm not really involved in the pricing or the licensing. However, it may be expensive. We have different licenses. 

We evaluated different options.

I'm a customer and end-user.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We have an older environment with a lot of servers. They are development servers for a lot of in-house development. We have a lot of things. We have Ruby on Rails, Java, and a lot of Oracle applications

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is mostly on-prem in my current job. In my previous jobs, we have had it on AWS or Azure.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features are good when it comes to simplifying risk reduction and maintaining compliance. It is something that they do very well. It is one of the reasons why we like running it. It is rock solid in all areas. Red Hat does a really good job of keeping on top of vulnerabilities and making the patching process easy.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has impacted our uptime and security. We have had no breaches, and our systems are usually up.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has not yet enabled us to achieve security standards certification because that is not a requirement for where we are, but I am pretty confident that we would meet those standards. Our security teams are usually chasing problems on the other side of the house.

I like most of the features. I like its stability. I like its views. It provides a very stable environment. There is not a lot of downtime. There are not a lot of issues. Primarily, we are deploying things and configuring things, and occasionally, we add new things for developers as needed, but it does not require much troubleshooting or break fixing. That is rare.

The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is another thing I like about it. It is particularly easy to find an answer to your problem online. There is very good documentation, very good user communities, and good support when you need it.

The upgrade procedures are a little bit cumbersome. It would be nice if they are not because every three or four years we have to update, and I find that to be a bit on the cumbersome side. We have been able to automate most of it, but we still run into things where the job does not finish. There are things that require additional steps. There are things that need to be removed and that always require manual intervention. I do not know how they can get rid of that, but it is cumbersome in an environment where you have hundreds or thousands of servers.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for ten years.

I would rate their support a nine out of ten. I just do not give tens. I am sure there are some areas where they can improve, but they are good. They are responsive.

Positive

I have got experience with Windows and Solaris before that. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is my favorite. With Solaris, that stream stopped a long time ago, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux has all of the nice things about it, and they have continued to develop and build many new things. For instance, when you had to patch on a Solaris box, you had to take the server down into single-user mode and apply the patching. I like it better than Windows in every way. It is more intuitive to me. I like that I can do more things from the command line. It is easier to automate things.

I have been involved in the upgrades and some migrations for migrating things from Solaris. We also had CentOS, which was converted to DevStream, so we have had to change those to Red Hat. The upgrades and migrations were not terribly difficult. Usually, the tools were there. We called support when we ran into problems, but for the most part, it worked.

I have used Convert2RHEL. It was a bit helpful. It did the job.

We mostly use Ansible for deployment, patching, and managing the system in general. Our experience has been good. I am looking at some of the newer things they have at the conference that we have not had a chance to play with, but it meets our needs.

We have seen a return on our investment. We are able to do what we need to do without any problems or interruptions, and we are able to do it quickly.

For me, it is not too bad, but my company pays the bill, so I do not worry too much about it. 

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux a nine out of ten.

We host Red Hat Enterprise Linux on our VMware Cloud and manage our customers' machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux machines are more stable than Windows machines.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to avoid cloud vendor lock-in.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a reliable operating system that can run for long periods of time without any issues.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux should modernize its UI to make navigating the screens easier.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for around four years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux can be easily scaled on a virtual machine.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I was not involved in the initial deployment but it was straightforward. The deployment took around 15 minutes per machine.

I would rate Red Hat Enterprise Linux nine out of ten.

I recommend using Red Hat Enterprise Linux over an open-source OS because it offers better support.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux requires minimal maintenance.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a reliable solution and I recommend it to others.

When I worked for an MSP, we had a lot of requirements for Linux servers. Any customer services that were deemed to be on Linux were on Red Hat 6 or 7. In fact, a good forty percent of our estate was on Red Hat 6 or 7.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux's built-in security features simplify risk management. The operating system is very secure, and we used tools like Puppet to further limit and lock down access with configuration files from a central location. This made Red Hat Enterprise Linux both more secure and easier to configure. The fact that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is open source means that there are a wide variety of tools available to help with security, and the lack of a user interface for some of these tools makes them even more secure.

Maintaining compliance is easy. We used another tool called Spacewalk to deploy patches and update RPMs. It was very easy to connect to a repository. We didn't have any problems with that either.

The portability of applications and containers built on Red Hat Enterprise Linux is beneficial for keeping our organization agile. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a lightweight operating system that can be deployed on a variety of hardware platforms, from small clusters to large industrial servers. This allows us to easily move applications and containers between different environments, which makes it easier to scale our infrastructure and respond to changing business needs.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has helped improve our organization's efficiency by allowing employees to use a leave service to work remotely. One of the benefits of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other Linux distributions is that they are more stable and less likely to break than Windows. This makes it possible to automate many tasks, such as patching, which can save time and money. In contrast, Windows is more prone to errors and requires more manual intervention. As a result, Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been a valuable tool for our organization.

The time to value with Red Hat Enterprise Linux was quick. It took us only a few months to half a year to realize that we didn't have to do so much tweaking with it. We could just let it run and do its own thing, configuring it once at most, and then leave it alone.

Red Hat enables us to achieve security standards and certifications.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps us build with confidence and ensures availability across physical, virtual, and cloud infrastructures. We use PuTTY to connect to them. All of our SSH connectivity was locked down to be only from jump servers, so none of it was public-facing. This was a clustered approach, where users had to first connect to a Windows server and then use SSH or PuTTY to connect to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux server.

The ability to automate security configurations is very beneficial. Once we set it up, it can do its job very well without any further input from us. We found it easy to set up and configure, and it has made our lives a lot easier.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux helps to implement and manage security best practices with reduced overhead.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux has made our lives a lot easier. It is one of those tools like Terraform that takes a lot of the time constraints away from us. This is because we can leave it to do its own thing, and we know that it will do what it is meant to do properly. I think this is because Red Hat Enterprise Linux is lightweight and has a single purpose. As a result, it only needs to be concerned with that purpose. For example, we only have one role for that server, and we are happy and content knowing that it will perform that role.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is lightweight and can be run on almost anything. It is a valuable product because it can do its job almost perfectly even with limited resources.

Although the price is reasonable, there is room for improvement in order to stand out from other open source solutions.

I am currently using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The stability of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is extremely good. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is lightweight, so it does not consume a lot of resources. It can handle a variety of workloads, and we have never had any problems with servers crashing or other issues. The software is also easy to set up and configure, and it runs smoothly once it is up and running.

The system's scalability is good. We deployed it across multiple locations, departments, and other areas. I give scalability a nine out of ten.

The support team is very helpful and knowledgeable about the product. They knew what they were doing and were able to resolve any issues I had very quickly.

Positive

We previously used CentOS. We still have Windows servers, and they can be a bit of a headache. However, we have since moved from CentOS to Route 6 and 7, and we found that this improved things a bit.

We switched because we had a better partnership with Red Hat themselves.

The initial setup is straightforward. We used Terraform to make it even simpler, but I don't think it was complex, to begin with. Deployment for one server takes a couple of hours. If we're just looking at a single server, or if we're building out a small cluster, deployment may take a day or two.

From a technical user perspective, we have seen a return on investment in terms of efficiency. This is because we can now set up a server and let it do what it needs to do without having to babysit it with patching, updates, and upgrades. This frees up time for engineers to work on other tasks, such as developing new features or fixing bugs.

The price is reasonable. I think it's a good value for what it is. It's not overpriced or extortionate. If it's something that's right for our environment, our infrastructure, and other factors, I think it's definitely worth considering. I don't think the price is a major concern.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux an eight out of ten.

I think open source software is generally cheaper than Red Hat. However, I don't think that cheaper software is always better. And I don't think that Red Hat is necessarily better than open source just because it costs more. It really depends on our specific needs. If we're comparing Red Hat to an open source equivalent, I would say that Red Hat would probably be a better fit for us. This is because Red Hat offers support, a back-end, and a team of experts who can help us if we need it. With open-source software, we're often on our own and have to figure issues out on our own. With Red Hat, we have the peace of mind of knowing that we can get help if we need it.

We have Red Hat Enterprise Linux deployed across multiple contracts and multiple data centers. It was not on the cloud; it was all on-premises. However, we were able to deploy it across multiple data centers, multiple customers, and multiple departments. This flexibility was a major advantage.

We used Red Hat Enterprise Linux to patch and update the system, including drivers, the OS itself, and security updates. We also monitored disk space usage and swap usage, but this was not too time-consuming. We had a team of three or four people to rotate tasks, so no one person was stuck on the same thing all the time.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a good product. It has a good ecosystem and support. It is lightweight and does what we need it to do. It is a good alternative to Windows for lightweight containers or servers. It is also good for specific roles.

The operating system is a great way to learn about Linux. While some people will always choose Windows, it is not always the best answer. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more stable and less resource-intensive than Windows, and it is also more trustworthy. This makes it a good choice for environments where reliability and security are important.

We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux as an infrastructure support operating system across both x86 and s390 platforms. Specifically, we are running it on x86 Intel and Linux s390 mainframe on Zynq.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a stable operating system. We recently upgraded the majority of our systems from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8. We were able to automate most of the upgrade process and did not encounter any major issues. As a result, we were able to bring our systems up to date quickly and easily. This is a major advantage of using Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

From an automation standpoint, we have been able to automate some of our patching workflows. This has definitely saved us time and money.

From a security and compliance standpoint, it is easy to maintain compliance. This is mostly accomplished by patching Red Hat Enterprise Linux on a frequent basis. The availability of security patches is also quick, which allows us to keep up with our client requirements quickly. Red Hat usually does a good job of making fixes available in a timely fashion, so we can remediate high-priority issues when they arise.

From a containerization standpoint, Docker and Podman now give us the ability to move workloads and structures around with little effort. It is very flexible and consistent, and the results also provide us with a stepping stone as we move towards an orchestration platform like OpenShift. Our ability to run Podman on servers and then migrate those Podman deployments to OpenShift is very beneficial.

The most valuable features are ease of support and the ability to run a read-only course on the operating system.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy to maintain. We currently use Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 with Docker for containerization. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8, we are moving to Podman, which is a native container runtime that is part of the operating system. 

I suggest that Red Hat move to a continuous delivery model instead of major releases. I know that this is a trend for many middleware products. We do not have a major release network. We only have monthly or quarterly roll-on releases on our continuous delivery model, which reduces the impact of a major version. This would probably be the easiest change to make.

The technical support has room for improvement.

I have been using Red Hat Enterprise Linux for two years.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is stable.

Since we run a number of hypervisors for all of our real systems, I believe that a lot of the scalability comes from a level higher than the operating system. However, Red Hat Enterprise Linux can accommodate these tools.

Red Hat support could be improved, and they should have a better relationship with IBM and VMware. This is because a lot of what we do involves working with IBM, both from a hardware standpoint and from a hypervisor standpoint. We have a long history with IBM, and we are now starting to work more with Red Hat on OpenShift private cloud solutions and other tooling. However, Red Hat and IBM are not on the same page. They are still very different companies, and they don't always know what the other one is doing. This can lead to contradictory information, inaccurate information, and frustration for customers. I think there is a relationship between Red Hat and IBM that could be improved. If Red Hat and IBM could work together more effectively, it would put customers at ease and make them more confident that they could get the work done. It would also help IBM and Red Hat to better understand each other's products and services, which would lead to better customer support.

For example, we recently had an incident that started as a severity two on the scaling. A number of our account representatives called and emailed us, saying, "Hey, we wanted to let you know that you have an open case. We need some help with this." The incident was not a production outage, but it was preventing us from doing something, so there was an indirect production impact. After about ninety minutes of back-and-forth communication, we were told, "Okay, go ahead and bump it up to severity one. That should get traction." We did not hear from anyone for four hours. This does not happen every time, but in this case, it needed to be dealt with well before four hours. It made things more difficult than they needed to be. Sometimes the support is an eight out of ten, and sometimes it is a four.

The end result was still good because they acknowledged what happened and got everyone together to resolve it but it was not done in an efficient way.

Neutral

The initial setup of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is very straightforward. It is not much different from any other Linux operating system. Most of the things we need to consider when deploying Linux are relatively standard. Therefore, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is easy to deploy and maintain. If we know how to administer Linux operationally, then Red Hat Enterprise Linux should be easy to deploy.

I do not know enough to give a comprehensive answer, but other operating systems are in use at my company because they have more favorable licensing terms. This is a major factor in why we do not use Red Hat Enterprise Linux everywhere.

We evaluated SUSE Linux Enterprise and a few others. Depending on the computing platform, it is sometimes better and sometimes not. For some of our environments that are running on s390, SUSE Linux Enterprise gives us a better price point. However, for some of our other environments, such as x86 on VMware, it is more valuable. It is a better financial move for us in those cases. Therefore, the value of SUSE Linux Enterprise changes depending on the computing architecture.

I give Red Hat Enterprise Linux a ten out of ten.

We have a requirement to have a Linux operating system.

I'm not sure how our developers are building their images. I believe they use some desk start products.

We use SUSE Linux Enterprise for Linux on the mainframe. In a particular enclave, we have some government contracts where we use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a number of reasons, including licensing for hosts. These hosts are hosted with OpenShift. We use Red Hat Enterprise Linux for all our Bastion hosts and OLS for our other hosts.

The Red Hat knowledge base is generally an eight or nine out of ten, but it can be difficult to get the information we need. The initial level of support is a six or seven, but it improves as we escalate the issue.

We are part of the State Department and use the solution to achieve operational excellence and readiness for the cloud. We think about what the next 20 to 30 years of consular systems infrastructure might look like to build and design for the next 40 years. Not many other companies think beyond a decade. 

The solution was implemented in our environment in 2014. The initial mission is still the same but how we go about it is different. For now, the solution is more for application support and making sure we are following State mandates or executive orders. 

For example, one use case involved planning, designing the implementation, and executing a launch of online passport renewals.

Our environment is moving toward tools that provide automation to remove human error. These are tactical operations and use cases. We currently use SaaS, OpenShift, and Ansible to a limited degree.

We had many issues with staff turnover during COVID. Working from home and trying to maintain databases was not ideal. During this time, the solution would have been rated a five out of ten.

Sometimes, vendors provide the government or bigger organizations with band-aids but not solutions. Everything seems to be a problem so many fixes are provided. A fix for this or a fix for that is equivalent to putting a band-aid on a large cut which will not work. Vendors tend to look at the money game because larger companies are their bread and butter. There should be an appreciation for the needs of bigger organizations.

It took some time to get us in a good position with the solution. There is definitely some growth and appreciation. We are at a place now where we can grow our environment. Today, the solution is rated a seven out of ten.

The solution is useful for application support and automations. 

A completely new setup should not be required when upgrading to a new version of the solution. For example, moving from RHEL 7.7 to RHEL 9 requires us to go through every minor version upgrade as well as RHEL 8. We do not have the ability to patch as quickly as we would like, but there are pathways. We got on 6.8 this year and migrated to 6.11 where we are trying to work on the automation portions of deployment. Before, we had variations of versions 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5 in our environment. We have not yet been able to use the supported versions that we are accustomed to with our applications. We are now on 7.9.1 and are trying to implement the minor upgrade versions in our environment. We have not yet experienced a healthy environment or the joy of using RHEL because we keep encountering issues and problems.

There are issues when upgrading or integrating with previous applications or systems such as Satellite, vRA, SaaS, or OpenShift. This is extremely, extremely important because a lot of our infrastructure is on RHEL. We need to have someone onsite to adjudicate our infrastructure's most important applications, when we would rather be able to patch them in a timely manner without having the whole world assist us. 

The solution should be more user-friendly so we better understand how to scale. It is not that we shun professional services, but there is a major knowledge gap in our understanding of the solution. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

With anything, when you nurture it things work. Now that we are finally on 7.9 and migrated 6.11 we are actively trying to automate. This puts us in a better and more stable position. 

We rely primarily on our contracting staff or professional services for support. We receive onsite support from account engineers who apply critical patches or troubleshoot code that is not cohesive. For the most part, turnaround time is moderate but certain legacy applications are harder to troubleshoot, so they take more time.

Technical support steps in for big issues and provides good help. For example, support assisted with decommissioning 6.2 and 6.5 because they were at end of life with no option for purchasing ongoing support. We had professional services and many different products, so technical support made an exception to help with migrations and that was appreciated. 

Technical support is rated a nine out of ten. 

Positive

I do not know the setup details. The solution was implemented in 2014 and I joined the team in 2018.

We are currently experiencing issues when upgrading or integrating with previous applications and are looking for solutions. We push out patches and look at Tower. We already tried Puppet and it integrates with Satellite, but we prefer to use home-grown products. 

Because we use Satellite, it would be nice if the automation portions come from Tower or others. We have explained this to an account manager but solutions are being presented to us from a sales perspective. For example, we are told that we should ramp up, get other applications, or purchase more licenses.  

Decommissioning is one of our biggest issues. We upgrade and spin it up, but then have problems decommissioning some applications so more user licenses are required. For example, we have an unused server but cannot remove the license because we are either unable to get assistance or do not know how to perform the action.

We used vRA with the solution but it did not work for us.

We also used CloudForm but are attempting without success to decommission because it was not a useful case.

It is important to ensure there is a level of training for implementation. You need to understand compliance for your organization to determine whether vendors can provide appropriate tools. 

Do not be afraid to ask questions once the solution is implemented in your environment to ensure you are where you need to be. 

Stay on top of version or patch releases to prevent bugs or security vulnerabilities to your ISSO or agency. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.